Wednesday, October 20, 2021
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Lawyer claims Parsvnath La Tropicana not sanctioned under Real Estate Act, Delhi High Court calls plea frivolous

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday pulled up a lawyer for filing a frivolous plea, alleging that the project – Parsvnath La Tropicana at Civil Lines area in the national capital is not sanctioned as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a petition filed by a person, who ‘falsely claimed to be a social activist,’ seeking action against the construction company.

The Bench was inclined to dismiss the petition with an exemplary cost for filing a writ before the High Court, rather than availing the efficacious alternative in accordance with RERA.

“Do you want to go as per the rules, or you want to go as per your whims and caprice? When you are after Respondent No 7 (the construction company) like a blackmailer, are you not aware about the rules under RERA?,”

-the Court asked the petitioner. 

Advocate Mukesh Kumar, representing the petitioner, responded that he is not aware about the rules, and would take action in accordance with law.

At this juncture, the Counsel representing the construction company drew the attention of the Bench on an order passed by a Single-Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, wherein the plea alleging unauthorised construction under the project was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no locus to file the writ petition. He informed the Bench that the petitioner in the instant petition was the Counsel for the petitioner before the Single Judge. 

The Bench reiterated the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while arguing a matter before the Bench, that “PIL has become an industry”. 

Also Read: Delhi High Court says Delhi riots a planned attempt to disrupt normal life

“The same petitioner who was a lawyer in earlier matter against same respondents,… has become a petitioner in another matter,” stated the Bench.

The Bench orally asked the petitioner’s Counsel not to indulge in such a practice of filing ‘bogus’ petitions. “You are a young lawyer. This is a very noble profession. Tomorrow we will go out, but you have to remain in the Delhi High Court campus for decades. Why are you indulging in the activity of blackmailing?,” asked the Court.

The Bench added that being a lawyer at the Delhi High Court, which is one of the premiere Courts in the country, such practices should not be ‘cultivated’.

“In junior days, everybody is struggling. All must have done some struggle in the start. It happens in everybody’s life. But don’t do like this. Don’t rush to earn money,” the Bench advised. However, keeping in view the fact that the Counsel was an amateur, the Court allowed the petition to be withdrawn. “Permission to withdraw the petition unconditionally is granted to the petitioner. The petition is hereby disposed of as withdrawn,” it added.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

News Update

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.